G.R. No. 216109 - SAPHIA MUTILAN, SAUDA MUTILAN, AND MOHAMMAD M. MUTILAN, VS. CADIDIA MUTILAN, KNOWN RECENTLY AS CADIDIA IMAM SAMPORNA, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MARAWI CITY.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , after evaluation of all the pleadings, the exhibits, evidences presented to the court, including the arguments of the counsel, the court finds the complaint of plaintiff Saphia Mutilan, Sauda Mutilan, Mohammad-Ali Mutilan, intervenor, Baby Asliah Mutilan without merit and ordered the case DISMISSED with cost to be paid by the defendants. SO ORDERED . [20] (Emphasis in the original) The Regional Trial Court found that Saphia, Sauda, Mohammad, and Asliah were not parties in interest in the two (2) Deeds of Absolute Sale executed by Cadidia and Diator. Since they were heirs only of Mahid, and not of either Cadidia or Diator, the trial court deemed their relationship to the parties as purely speculative and collateral. [21] The trial court also held that Saphia, Sauda, Mohammad, and Asliah's failure to implead Diator, the seller, as an indispensable party rendered their Complaint dismissible. It further found that they committed forum shopping for their failure to pursue their claim in the Shari'a District Court, where Mahid's estate was being settled. [22] Saphia, Sauda, and Mohammad jointly moved for reconsideration, while Asliah separately filed her own. Both Motions, however, were denied by the Regional Trial Court. [23] Thus, Saphia, Sauda, and Mohammad appealed to the Court of Appeals. [24] In a March 17, 2014 Decision, [25] the Court of Appeals held that the probate court or the Shari'a District Court, and not the Regional Trial Court, had jurisdiction over the subject matter, as the only interested parties were all the decedent's heirs who had already appeared in the estate settlement proceedings, and the third parties' rights were not impaired. Moreover, it found that invoking the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court after the unfavorable judgment of the probate court was an act of forum shopping. [26] The Court of Appeals also ruled that Saphia, Sauda, and Mohammad, not being parties to the Deeds of Absolute Sale, were not real parties in interest in the action seeking their annulment. As such, the Court of Appeals found that they failed to show prejudice on their rights, and their claimed interests were mere "expectancy or a contingent interest." [27] Finally, the Court of Appeals held that the failure to implead indispensable parties, such as the lots' seller and the decedent's estate, proved fatal to the Complaint. [28] Accordingly, the dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals' Decision read: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the appeal is hereby DENIED . The assailed Resolution rendered by the Regional Trial Court dated June 23, 2010 is AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED . [29] (Emphasis in the original) Saphia, Sauda, and Mohammad moved for reconsideration, [30] but the Court of Appeals denied the Motion in the assailed December 2, 2014 Resolution. [31] Thus, on February 6, 2015, they filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari. [32] Petitioners assert that the probate court's findings on the excluded properties is only provision